User talk:Mtking/Archives/2011/July

Welcome

 * }

Your edit summaries
Thank you for patrolling possibly non-notable articles. However, as several of these concern BLPs (biographies of living people), you could make your edit summaries a bit more courteous.("Is this a lady worthy of an encyclopaedic entry", "Is this a guy worthy of an encyclopaedic entry", etc). --Crusio (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: CenterLine Software
Hello Mtking. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of CenterLine Software, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Significance asserted on the talk page (when last speedy was declined). Please send to AfD if notabilty concerns remain.''' Thank you. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Bernhard Joos
Hello Mtking. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Bernhard Joos, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Enough to pass A7. Suggest WP:AFD if you want to take it further. .''' Thank you. nancy 14:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Ramsay Hall
Hi. Once someone had removed a Speedy Deletion tag from an article (provided they are not the original author), you cannot add it again - Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial deletions, and if someone disagrees with you then that means it is not uncontroversial. If you still believe the article should be deleted, you should file a report at WP:AfD so that the community can discuss it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not realise you can no re add it and since the editor did not make any effort to edit the article thought it was ok to re add it. MtKing.

CSD notification
The page James Lighthill House looks like it may be a valid CSD, but I prefer not to delete a page unless the creator has been notified. I understand that sometimes automated tools fail to do the notification for some reason. Not sure if that was the case, but could you make the notification? SPhilbrick T
 * Responding to your question at my talk page, Go to the article, click on "View History" The creator is the editor with the oldest edit (at the bottom of the page). In this case F40player. Then leave a message at their talk page. Usually, those who tag regularly use something like wp:twinkle, which partially automates the process. However, someone else has already concluded that this article doesn't meet the criteria, so keep this in mind for next time.-- SPhilbrick  T  01:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: James Lighthill House
Hello Mtking, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of James Lighthill House, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. -- Lear's Fool 12:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nominations for deletion
Hi. You may want to look again at the various notability policies and guidelines for deletion. You PRODed Manuel Pedro Gomes, but the material in the article showed him playing for a top tier club. For sure, it is an unreferenced biography of a living person, and as such I've tagged it as such. Also, you PRODed Jack Chadirdjian, and Jean Fortier as non-notable politicians but they are members of teh city council of Montreal, a major Canadian city and meets WP:POLITICIAN point 2 as they are "are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city", and the articles are sourced showing coverage. Please take more care and consideration when deciding to submit articles for deletion. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I had read WP:POLITICIAN and was basing it on "People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Mtking (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Paul Robeson House (London)
In regard to this nomination for deletion, you need to provide an actual reason for deletion in your nomination. If you don't, it's possible the nomination could wind up as a "speedy keep" on the grounds that no reason has been given to delete. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Paul Robeson House (London)
What is your intent here? Do you still believe the Paul Robeson House (London) article should be deleted? If so, you might want to place a valid deletion rationale back on the discussion page, or it is likely to be kept. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 04:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to quit with these lousy article nominations. I'm working on List of hotels and selecting the most notable by country. Your deletion rationale is an effin joke.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion (List of Hotels)
Deleting an article is a major step, before nominating an article for deletion you should consider other steps, for example discussions on the talk page of an article, or when a project clearly involves one key editor, you should talk to them unless the article is clearly spam or vandalism.

You should also familiarise yourself with the Reasons for Deletion before nominating articles for deletion, your objection to List of hotels appears to be strongly related to the content of the list, rather than its existance and does not correspond clearly with any of the reasons. As such, it may be speedily kept in less than the standard 7 day period.

Before nominating an article it may be worthwhile to check the article's history, this paticular article happens to have recieved major edits over the past 24 hours, and (fairly obviously) is in the early stages of a redraft. If you object to the nature of the redraft, it may be worth waiting for a short while to see how it develops and if you are unhappy, you might wish to talk to the editors involved. In this case mainly myself, Dr. Blofeld and possibly Aymatth2.

Regards Bob House 884 (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Levitt Bernstein
I see that your AfD/notability binge goes on, with a tag added yet again with no prior attempt at Talk page discussion or article improvement. Yes this article could do with some work, but a 10 second Google search reveals a raft of evidence of notability: .Rangoon11 (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

CSD Opposition
I noticed you tagged Bill Berman (Psychologist) with a G11 tag. I have disagreed and removed it. I replaced it with a PROD. If the PROD gets through, we can proceed to AFD and go on from there. Please do not CSD tag articles so hastily. --43?9enter ☭talk☭contribs 05:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also note that it is best to tag an article with CSD and notify the creator. That can be automatically done with Twinkle, although you must take care while using it. 05:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Those aren't questions. --43?9enter ☭talk☭contribs 05:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I just glanced at your past User talks, and most of them concern deletion and hasty tagging. And sometimes you do not notify people, which is best to be done always. 70.231.236.154 (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * But on some occasions you didn't. I'm just reminding you. --43?9enter ☭talk☭contribs 06:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear power in the United Kingdom
I would be grateful if you could explain the reasons for your obstructive behaviour on the above article, where you have reverted a series of uncontroversial improving edits for no apparent reason than that they were not discussed prior to being made, which is not necessary under policy. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Speedy deletion contested: Patrick Armstrong (political analyst)
Hello Mtking, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Patrick Armstrong (political analyst), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. As you will note if you look at the history, I didn't create Patrick Armstrong (political analyst). I created Patrick Armstrong, as a redirect to Guildford Four. Someone has subsequently moved it and made it no longer a redirect. I have no opinion about Patrick Armstrong (political analyst). Morwen - Talk 06:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ramsay Hall
Chill out on the Ramsay Hall reversions, you're going to get 3rr'd and it's not particularly constructive one way or another.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Fresh Records (UK)
Hello Mtking. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Fresh Records (UK), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: the article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hurricanes Rugby League
Hi Mtking, WP:TWINKLE did not properly complete your deletion nomination for this article. As a result, deletion discussion was never initiated. As you supplied no reason for deletion, I have removed the entry from today's log. Before you re-nominate, please check Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes -- many things on professional sports are usually kept; a reference from outside the sport is normally not required. Feel free to contact me should you have any questions. --Pgallert (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Jake Sakson
Hello Mtking, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Jake Sakson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 05:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

article for deletion
thank you for your message. a reply to your message was left on my talk page. --Fire Green Horse (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

CSD on Griffith R. Harsh
Just letting you know, I have challenged your A7 CSD on Griffith R. Harsh, while he may or may not pass notability, being the spouse of such a prominent person is a sufficient indication of notability to survive criteria A7. However the point is largely academic, as it came to my attention that the article is obvious copyvio, so I replaced your A7 with a G12. Monty 845  04:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

db-spam over Prod
FYI, I reverted your db-spam made in this edit at Hotels_in_Chandigarh_Capital_Region because there was already a prod on the page. Additionally, the user, whom I am trying to work with on getting to understand the community, has already been assault with a few too many deletions, and not really been explained to as to what he has been doing wrong. Besides, it is not clear that that article is advertising and immediately adding a db to the page only after a couple of days, when in fact it could be notable and developed seems very WP:BITEy. Thank you for patrolling newer pages though! Happy editing, Sadads (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK Mtking (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 Imbaba Church Attacks
You may want to withdraw your AFD for 2011 Imbaba Church Attacks. Articles about incidents of this type routinely merit articles.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for withdrawing your AFD! --Fire Green Horse (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you now close the AFD. Unnecessary AFD's are a waste of everyone's time.I.Casaubon (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

??? What's with the marks
Hey Mtking, I just posted this stuff. Haven't you ever heard of not being bitey? And what's with is conflict of interest stuff?--Rainman64 (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just curious is the assumption here that because I mention the guys company that it is considered advertisement???--Rainman64 (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strange comments from a inexperienced user. The issue with COI is that given the two pages that were posed fully formed within moments of each other it gives the impression of someone trying to promote the parties concerned. If I am wrong I apologise. Mtking (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait! are you saying that because I preview edited both articles before I "officially" posted them that that is unusual or somekind of conflict? Look I'm currently working on this article.  I'll take in mind the things you posted but this is a work in progress you shouldn't be so quick to bite.--Rainman64 (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mtking editors reported as bitey to new users can also be blocked or ban from interaction with new users. Read WP:NPP. According to what I've read on your talk page you have a history of this and in my particular case the point can be made that within minutes of creating these pages you quickly assumed all of the listed points without being completely justified.  As I read on new article review, you have to give pages some time to build before they can be judged.  I was clearly not give that time.
 * Plus, I'm removing your tags not because the issues aren't being handled but because they are. After your first tagging I commented on the issue of conflict of interest because this, fan view and advertisement tags all seem connected.  You stated above that the conflict tag was placed out of somekind of assumption you had about my posting or editing style... you were wrong... you apologized; I moved on.  But I read up on fan view, advertisement and etc. So I started to change a few things that might be perceived as puffy or promotional (All of this is clear in my edits).  But on the issue of notability I said to you this article just got created and posted the under-construction sign to let you and others know these articles are being updated. Remember WP:NPP says that "Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation is not likely to be constructive and may only serve to annoy the page author." When I removed the tag the last time it was because information was both rewritten and added on both pages that adds credit to notability and plays down the need for a tag on that point. My last point is that according to the edit history it took you about 5 minutes make these tags on both pages I created .  It is highly doubtful that you read both pages in that time but you judged both pages within 1 minute of each other .  It looks like you are targeting me or at least threaten me with a block over issues that I'm dealing with and then removing the tags for. According to what I read these tags can be removed for several reasons, that isn't considered edit-warring:


 * 1. No discussion about neutrality issues was started on this article's talk page.
 * 2. Discussions about neutrality issues have stopped (for more than a few days).
 * 3. The problems in the article have been resolved.
 * 4. All editors involved in the article agree to remove it.

The bottom-line is that I haven't done anything wrong, I'm not even warring with you. But let me be clear if you want to help review these articles then do it the right way. If you have real concerns they should be explained in detail on each article's talk page. Plus, I think you should read policy on WP:OVERTAGGING. Have a good day. --Rainman64 (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Problem is, I do not believe that you are a "new" user you are clearly someone with extensive knowledge of how WP works, you are removing the tags without addressing the issues, a look at the ref's on each does not show anything substantial. If you try and or  - you find nothing about your Paul Dorian or nothing substantial about UIS Technology Partners. The purpose of the tags is to alert other editors to see if they can do better that the creator or me. If you believe that the tags do not apply, by all means do remove them, however I will take that you feel it meets all the guidelines and will, unless the articles better demonstrates how the guy and his company are notable I will feel obliged to nominate for consideration to delete. BTW WP:OVERTAGGING is not a policy or for that mater a guideline but an essay.  Mtking (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually friend I just researched all of that since you tag these articles... its what I do I'm a good researcher... I've worked for reporters, private investigation, legal departments and academia; so learning Wikipedia policy isn't that difficult. In fact, it's because I'm good at research that I can tell you that doing a basic google or yahoo search on something doesn't prove or disprove a subject's notability.  I say that because a search on these engines only gives a person the links that were given to Google by the websites themselves... so its not a search of all that is online, just all that they know of.  Yet whenever a person notices when they search a word or name in Google and they don't find a site listed that they know has information on the subject then Google has a page where they ask people to submit to them the new links for review and addition.
 * But hey, I can see where you're going with all of this... your just looking for someway to delete these articles. Your even most recent history shows that you go from article to article trying to delete them.  So let's talk Notability policy.  If you believe that the articles have not significant source to verify notability then I say although I haven't yet completed the creation of these articles there is at least one obviously notable fact on both.  That Dorian and the company are currently listed among Silicon Valley's Top 40 under 40 according to the Business Journal.   That is an honor and achievement of which they were nominated and received credit for from a nationally respected business publication. Just remember "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." is considered notable.

That reference alone should clear the subject because it applies to the following:
 * "Significant coverage" means that source address the subject directly in detail. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
 * The Biz Journal article was published for the purpose of honoring the list of entrepreneurs.


 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * The publication is respectable and has its own Wikipedia page.

But Hey you do what you got to do, but according to policy the attempt to delete a page well still under-construction goes against good faith policy.--Rainman64 (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shame you did not put as much effort into finding good Reliable sources than trying to debate good faith policy. Mtking (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

S/he's taken you to ANI at WP:ANI. I smell a sock—Rainman64 has an uncanny knack for Wikipedia policy. Goodvac (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Violating Conduct
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Rainman64 (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
Hi Mtking. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for V.K.T. Balan, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Catfish Jim  &#38; the soapdish  11:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

CSD-A7 is used for articles that have no assertion of significance. This is a considerably lower standard than that of notability. This particular article has multiple problems, but assertion of significance is not one of these. Catfish Jim  &#38; the soapdish  11:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

CN== CSD nomination of Ingersoll Rand - Purchased by Volvo ==

I have speedily deleted this article, but your criterion of A7 was incorrect. Clearly, both Ingersoll Rand and Volvo are notable companies, so A7 simply doesn't apply. On the other hand, since there is an established article about Ingersoll Rand, this article was deleted per A10. Please take care to evaluate any article you intend to nominate for speedy deletion to determine which, if any, of the criteria it meets. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

1RR
All articles in the Israel-Palestine topic area are under a 1 revert per 24 hours restrictionYour edits at Poison affair of Palestinianschoolgirls violated that. I suggest you undo your revert before you are blocked.


 * Rym torch, sign your posts. Mtkings, just ignore him. Your edits were before I put the 1RR template so using the same argument and justification that were recently used for someone not be sanctioned at AE, there was no violation and you don't have to do anything.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up Mtking (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rym torch was just blocked as yet another sockpuppet of a user involved with long term abuse of the project anyway...  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Belime
Thanks for heads-up. It's not quite as simple as that. I had discussions with the creator, his agent(!), now editing under a new account since his first was blocked as a spam user name. It now asserts notability, provides refs, and the most blatant "musical genius" type stuff has gone. I don't think it meets the speedy criteria, and it's not been tagged as such. It needs to go to AfD, but for reasons I won't bore you with, I never start that process.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect CSD tag used
Hi Mtking, you used the incorrect CSD tag on Tanner yochum. I would have A7'd it. It seems (from the username) that it is autobiographical with no notability mentioned - or perhaps patent nonsense. Unless you perhaps had other criteria for choosing that tag? Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 02:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did see the username, however I could not discount the fact that someone wishing to attack person x would create a username so as to make it appear autobiographical, so choose that criteria as it auto-blanks the page. Mtking (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds prudent... guess I'm used to seeing such a term being used as a compliment, such as "Joe's a beast!". But always better safe than sorry. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 02:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Slutwave
I tagged it for vandalism rather than as a hoax... ("It is also a fairly derogatory descriptor (but well-deserved)") but perhaps it's a candidate for PROD/AFD rather than CSD.  Catfish Jim  &#38; the soapdish '' 09:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

El Goonish Shive
Y'know, I'm getting sick and tired of this article being deleted. It has a large number of followers, it is referenced - much as The Princess Bride - for naming recurring themes, and people might want to know more about it.

If Help Desk (webcomic) and Queen of Wands get articles, surely El Goonish Shive deserves one as well?

Stop deleting the damn thing. I will keep re-creating it every time it is deleted.

--Syniq (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should try to prove notability then. So far, the way you've claimed notability are simply that... your claims. You may wish to read up on Wikipedia's guidelines on notability to get an idea of how to proceed here. Additionally, since it's already been deleted for non-notability, you will find that you probably will need to be very thorough in proving notability. Hope that helps you. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 18:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletions
Hello Mtking, I declined the speedy deletions for Larne Cricket Club, Portadown Cricket Club and Laurelvale Cricket Club. Being part of a senior league is enough to pass A7 IMO. I left additional and similar rationale on each of their talk pages. Given the conversation there, it would be better to bring all of those club articles to AfD if you feel such across-the-board criteria fails notability guidelines.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Help if you need it
Hi Mtking, I notice you've been active in fighting vandalism, but have been having some difficulties with speedy deletions. Now, I am not saying this to sound like I am bragging, but I have yet to have one declined (though I did retract one personally on behalf of an editor who later proved his attempt was a good faith attempt that could be actually turned into a legitimate article). Thus, if you would like some assistance with your efforts, or some insights or tips, please feel free to drop me a note and let me know.

Newpages patrolling is a very important task - but unlike what most people think, it is NOT simply because one can filter out the nonsense that gets created. It is also a very important tool to assist in getting new contributors onboard and welcomed, as well as find legitimate creation attempts where one can steer someone in the correct direction, or tag the article with helpful tags that may get others onboard to assist. So, at the very least, slow down a bit and try to filter out the legitimate efforts with the pure nonsense. Remember, Speedy Deletions should solely be filed for unconstestable cases where it's blatantly obvious the material should be or needs to be deleted immediately. If it's something questionable, it should be submitted to article for deletion, and if it's something that looks like the start of an article on a subject that may indeed be notable (regardless of how short - as long as it identifies sufficient context to show who/what the subject of the article is, in a manner that allows proving notability), then it should be left, and tagged as a stub (preferably with the proper sub-tagging, based on what category it fits in).

Around quite a lot lately, so feel free to drop by if you have any questions or comments. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 20:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

List of 3D-enabled moblie phones
Hey, I noticed about the tag, and your comment, can I have some help getting rid of that article? I dint know what critirea it qualifies under, but I completly agree with you. Shakinglord (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two routes - either PROD or AfD, try the first one first and if anyone objects then go the second route. Mtking (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sometimes I need a little administrator help. Shakinglord (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And by the way...

Shakinglord (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - though perhaps a little early in the morning for that for me. BTW I am not an administrator. Mtking (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Elizabeth Gates Wallace
Welcome to Wikipedia! Just a head's up. A credible claim of significance cannot be made based on inheritance. This is contrary to our notability guidelines. A helpful way to view or assess claims of importance and significance is in accordance with our topical notability guidelines. If an article asserts a claim based on these guidelines, then the CSD does not apply. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  09:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Singapore transit
4 deletions by three different admins, no attempt to justify, deleted and salted now  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  11:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
 b  W  04:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see
There is an issue that may be of interest to you at WP:3RRN Lionel (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 2
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Business Journal's Forty Under 40. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''You are beginning to cross some very serious lines here MtKing. I'm not really a bias editor on these subjects, but you are really starting to look like one.'' NanaRobins (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
 b  W  02:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul S Farmer
I fully concur with your speedy delete on this one. I've been watching it closely for months to see if the editor (the man himself) improves it regarding viable serious references. Of course speedy delete might be declined through all the (self-interested) work that has gone into it - if it is declined then AfD would be appropriate. I am adding a comment to that effect on the article talk page. Acabashi (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I notice he has had 3 books published by Oxford University press, which is enough for notability as an author.    DGG ( talk ) 13:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

-==speedies== in addition to the above, you nominated,
 * 1) David Lee (real estate developed) for no indication of notability, despite the sourced information that " Forbes described him as 'one of top 3 commercial-office landlords in southern California.'"[1]]]. That's certainly enough information to indicate possible importance, and probably enough to prove actual notability. (Like the one above, another admin than I removed that speedy tag). Please be more careful--WP:CSD is interpreted narrowly.   DGG ( talk ) 13:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Tips

 * Hi Mtking, sorry, I've been very busy. As DGG notes, the guidelines for A7 (as well as others) are narrowly defined (and must also be narrowly applied), and often do not take into account article issues (for those, there's "needs improvement" type tagging, AfD and PROD). If an article creator makes an article that has a claim of notability, and that claim has some veracity, then A7 (or CSD) isn't the way to go. Remember, the key phrase in A7 is "indication of notability" and not "proof of notability via reliable sources". Somewhere, one of my fellow editors has some CSD training he created with input from others for one of his adoptees. If I can dig it up, I'll send you a link. In the meantime, here's a few tips:
 * Always attempt to apply the exact letter (narrow definition) for any CSD criteria you think may apply - if it's not an exact fit, then don't CSD.
 * If you aren't very familiar with the topic itself (and web searches on it still leave you with inadequate knowledge), it may be best to skip it and allow an editor more familiar with the topic to address the issue.
 * Especially in the case of new editor contribution, I personally think it best to make an effort to ascertain if the article may, with some work, become a viable article on Wikipedia - and if so, instead of applying a CSD to it, I try to lead the editor in the correct direction to improve the article. Besides tips to the editor(s), applying the correct category to it followed with a "need help from experts" tag is a good step.
 * Articles can be multi-tagged with various CSD's (in one step via using Twinkle), but don't over-tag. Only the couple most blatant or important criteria.
 * So far, following these tips, I've never had a CSD'd article rejected... so, hopefully they'll help you in that respect as well. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 21:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Pis 2you
Hmm. Given the user's possible non-English-speaking background, and the fact that it doesn't sound like common phrasing, perhaps we should ask him about the name first. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

CSD -> PROD at The Rosary RC Primary School
My apologies for forgetting about the schools exception to CSD A7 for the above article. However, you have piqued my interest now: any idea why the exception exists? - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No Sorry. Mtking (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ardmore Cricket Club
Hello Mtking, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ardmore Cricket Club, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Theleftorium (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My attention was drawn to this by someone on the talk page of another "minor" (to me) Irish cricket club. I, too, had a failed CSD & have taken it to AfD at Articles_for_deletion/Burndennett_Cricket_Club. I've also had a contest to my CSD at The Nedd Cricket Club, which seems even more bizarre. I do understand that there a subjective issues regarding "importance" but these articles simply do not seem to meet the sports notability criteria &, if they do, then they are making a very poor attempt at proving it. Am I misunderstanding policy/guidelines here? Another admin has suggested that I let the Burndennett CC AfD run if only to determine whether the league is notable but I am beginning to think that this is a "inherent notability" situation as per high schools and one-horse villages in Nepal etc.


 * Do you have any thoughts about how we might obtain a wider opinion regarding these issues? I have the feeling that the AfD will just get "piled on" by cricket fans etc, although I hope not. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think the best idea would be to let the Burndennett AfD run its course and if it's deleted, you should just PROD the other articles. You might be able to get some input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports. :) Theleftorium (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I declined the other cricket club articles on the asme basis--I haven't the least idea whether or not they'd be considered notable here, but  apparently no admin is willing to speedy--suggest using AfD to get consensus .    DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Cricket project opinion
You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum (neologism)
Hi, Mtking. I have been editing and participating in discussion on the Santorum (neologism) page and saw that you requested the Temporary full protection: for the page. Since I have not seen you edit or take part in developing the page, I wondered what led you to that request? Gacurr (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been on my watchlist for a while, and since there was two ANI posts, and an obvious edit war going. Mtking (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

University at Buffalo name
Please don't change the head intro to the University at Buffalo again. I wrote about it under the discussion in the article, but if you look here, http://www.buffalo.edu/toolbox/editorial/ub_glossary.php, the University specifically says, "It is not appropriate to refer to the university as the State University of New York at Buffalo, SUNY Buffalo, SUNYAB or similar variations.". Therefore, it is not appropriate to include "State University of New York at Buffalo" in the entire article at all.

Thank you. Lay off my ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalofan4255 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh and also, thanks for the message before. Asshole. Buffalofan4255 (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but 1. My account is not a single-purpose account, I happen to edit many other pages and organizations. And 2. So what I have relations to the University? Show me some document on wikipedia that says editors affiliated with an article should not edit those pages. I dare you to. Being a student at UB only lets me have more factual information to give wikipedia about the university. In no way have I provided vandalism or abuse to the University at Buffalo article. Acutally, I've been editing the page for many months now, an I have received good feedback on my edits. So keep on trying to be an asshole and dousche who sits behind his computer all day, editing wikipedia. I'm here to make wikipedia articles more factual and appealing. I don't know what you're trying to do, but it doesn't sound good. Buffalofan4255 (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I did provide you with the link to the page it is WP:COI (or the section can be found at WP:AVOIDCOI), Other pages you might like to read are WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Mtking (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have read it before and just read it again. I don't see how I'm in a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalofan4255 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if you can't see how a student at a school or university has a close connection to it, there is really no helping you. Mtking (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I do see that there is a connection, but I don't see how it is a conflict. Also, wikipedias policy on "Titles" and official names is: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." Therefore, "State University of New York at Buffalo" should, again, not be used because it is extremely rarely used. "University at Buffalo, The State University of New York" is recognizable, unambiguous, and is consistent in its usage in its sources. Please don't act like I'm a juvenile small brained idiot. I know what your saying, and I think you're only saying it to tick me off. I am smart enough to know that wikipedias policy on this matter agrees with what I'm saying, therefore, you're wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalofan4255 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if you cant see how there is a conflict in editing your own school or university's page, then I can't help you. For example I don't go near the pages for the school's, and University I went to nor for any company that I have worked for.
 * I see there might be cause to change the name of the article page as per WP:COMMONNAME, but the official name should appear in the lead and should also be a redirect page to whatever name the article uses. Mtking (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, about me being a SPA, it also reads this: "However a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag." If I were to be a "SPA", I still am appropriatley making good points that lign with Wikipedias policies. Buffalofan4255 (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the account you are using now is a SPA (I think you may have had others and will wait to see if you declare them) but I don't believe you are sticking to the WP:COI rules. Mtking (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"Requests"
That was kind of a cheat on my part -- if someone makes a userpage then promptly blanks it, I sometimes consider it to be equivalent to a 'request' for the page to be deleted. DS (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Cricket discussion
I have just gone off on one. I am, as I say in my post, near to the end of my tether with the ownership issue. It would be useful if others would comment but right now it is a total stalemate. I have no idea how many people are involved in the cricket project but they really do need to come out of the woodwork. I do not mind what opinion they voice, as long as they voice it. Otherwise, this could be dragging on in a month, two months, six months time. Daft. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a curiously similar discussion going on about AfD noms and what article creators should do right now. OK, it relates to synagogues but the gist is the same as the CRIC or, more specifically, Mooretwin situation. - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

TT-talkback
╟─ Treasury Tag ► Odelsting ─╢ 07:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Acather96 (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Reasoning on Bert Mizusawa
Does anyone read the talk page per the editing guidelines?
 * I am requesting that anyone who deletes this page state SPECIFICALLY why page is not WP:N per WP:MILPEOPLE. NOT JUST DELETING FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER.  Check your respective talk pages for further clarification.  Anyone who deletes this page under the sole reasoning that it "was previously deleted" obviously is not abiding by the editing standards since they did not read the new article, to compare it with the deletion discussion (which took place over a year ago), and then come to a determination.Missclark (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Disputed CSD at Dan Alonso
Mtking, I have disputed your CSD tagging of Dan Alonso under A7. While there is clearly a WP:BLP1E problem (hence my PROD), he is clearly signficant (even if only significant for one event that is currently in the news). Therefore, I do not believe A7 applies. I am sure it will be deleted under either PROD or AfD. Singularity42 (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that he is significant, he had a minor involvement in some court case. Mtking (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember that all an article needs to do to pass criteria A7 is indicate why the subject is important. It is a very low threshold. Monty  845  00:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Par Excellence Award for AFD
How has the article qualified for Afd? What are your thoughts? Brad Wilkins (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Total lack of notability, it fails WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not lack notability. There is a lack of information on this subject in any articles on wikipedia. It also is part of the biographies of many important individuals, including a current presidential candidate, several university presidents, politicians, philanthropists, and inventors of such items as the artificial heart, 911 emergency, etc. How do you, Mtking, reconcile that as "total lack of notability"? how do you substantiate your claim? Brad Wilkins (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mtking (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * in that case the article should be tagged "Citations missing". You seem not to want to do the research or spend time on the subject to see if it is notable. And I should remind you that it does not need to follow WP:GNG if it follows WP:ACADEMIC. And it does for each individual, the association of the individuals to each other and the nature as an academic award by a major research university. All of which can easily be seen following the current sourcing of the article. or a simple news/periodical search on the award, the university, and any of the recipients. Do you refute this?Brad Wilkins (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I don't see how WP:ACADEMIC apples to a university award and WP:GNG that apply in all cases, subject specific guidelines are only an indication as to a subjects likelihood to meet the WP:GNG, and this award does not seem to meet them. Mtking (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but I see your point. Yet by suggesting Afd you are not following WP:GNG]. You need to look at [[WP:FAILN. Therefore are other prior measures which you are not following. Brad Wilkins (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did do a search for sources and found none. Mtking (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * you did not effectively look. but needless to say... Follow the procedures for WP:GNG, look specifically at "Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines". AfD is not the first step for an article not following it. Brad Wilkins (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, you are not following the very basic rules set out by wikipedia in WP:DELETE. Examples in the beginning of this article: "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." Also, "This page in a nutshell: Administrators have the ability to delete articles and other Wikipedia pages from general view, and to undelete pages that were previously deleted. These powers are exercised in accordance with established policies and guidelines, and community consensus. There are often alternatives to deletion." and also, "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it." Please be more considerate of the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. Please delete your AfD. and make a more appropriate editing following Wikipedia standards. Otherwise, keep up the good work as I see you are a passionate editor and therefore an attribute of the Wikipedia community. Brad Wilkins (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather then debate the finer points of Robert's Rules of Order why not provide the reliable sources that are independent of the subject that show that the Par Excellence Award does indeed meet WP:GNG ? Mtking (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I could just as easily ask why don't you follow wikipedia policy? It seems to me that you put a lot of article up for deletion and ask others to do the work. Seems like an armchair editor. My first comment gave you everything you, Mtking, need to do the verifying yourself. I am an expert on the matter and therefore created the article. I put forth a great deal of work in 'good faith'. And you have made very little effort AND are resisting following wikipedia policy. WHY? Brad Wilkins (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If, as you say you have great deal of work on the article providing the sources won't be a problem. The more you debate the Robert's Rules of Order the more I am minded to conclude that the sources do not exist. Mtking (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not debating, simply imploring you to remove your tag and follow the rules. It is a shame. You insist that I need to provide links to fulfill your/Mtking's assessment. Yet your assessment is not inline with wikipedia procedure. So, why would I waste my time trying to satisfy your passing interest in deleting this article? I am wasting time to help you, because i think what you do generally is NOT bad. There is a lot of stuff on here that does not have a place. So, again I ask you to reassess your position. Why do you think that this does not meet WP:GNG? please remember that this is a new article. Secondly, if you can give an example or reason why it does not meet (please don't repeat again "lack of"), then please remove your deletion tag and follow wikipedia process as outlined in WP:FAILN. you keep claiming WP:GNG but your action is not in line. also, please keep this to issues. comments/ speculation as to motivation is counter productive. "The more you debate the Robert's Rules of Order the more I am minded to conclude that the sources do not exist." And besides, this is not a reason for you, who made the tag in the first place to not do your due diligence.Brad Wilkins (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that it is not notable because very simply there is no coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:GNG) if you disagree then show them. If you can't then there is nothing more to be said. Mtking (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in here, but at this point, Brad Wilkins, the AfD has commenced. Any editor has the right to start an AfD if they see fit.  The discussion at that point takes place at the AfD page.  Why don't you actually write why you think the article should be kept at the AfD page, rather than spend all this time arguing about whether the AfD should have been started in hindsight.  I have to agree with Mtking here; if you haven't yet made one policy based keep !vote at the AfD, and instead are spending all this time arguing on the nom's talk page about whether the AfD should have been started in the first place, it kind of looks like you don't have a policy-based keep !vote to make... Singularity42 (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments appreciated. I feel wikipedia protocol is being abused by Mtking in putting up dozens of pages for deletion in less than 90 minutes today. I feel that that shows a lack of due process and adds work to admins with little or no cause in some cases as there are other remedies as mentioned above. Brad Wilkins (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

While you are at it, you could try to delete all the pages I helped create... Thanks for attacking pages I have worked on... you have succeeded with Brininstool, Kerwin and Lynch and Par Excellence Award between Mtking and Malik Shabazz, but why stop there with undescriminant harrassment, i also worked on Gordon Gill Adrian Smith (architect) Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture. Or did you think I would not notice that you make comments and then go to town on my additions to wikipedia. Brad Wilkins (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Casino Madrid article
Hi Mtking, thanks for trying to contribute to my article, but Casino Madrid does support and pass Music. I've removed your DB tag. --BillyMoses (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Why?
Why want you delete the file that I uploaded. It's just a non-free promotional photo for ilustrate the Gypsy Heart Tour. It's just like photos as the cast of tv series. Bye!--Juandy004 (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it does not meet WP:NFCC. Mtking (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gordon Gill
Hello Mtking. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gordon Gill, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required.''' Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Irish cricket
I do realise that you may have moved on after the inconclusive nature of the recent WP:CRIC discussions. However, I thought that I would let you know that in the spirit of the suggestion made therein by I have nominated a further club article at AfD - Articles for deletion/Academy Cricket Club. What you make of it is, of course, entirely up to you. I shall as a matter of courtesy copy Johnlp in on this. The article creator has already been made aware of it. - Sitush (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for the conclusion of the other one then going to propose a mass re-direct on the top-tier teams, to be discussed at WT:CRIC, then move on to other options for the other tier's. I will have a look and comment on the AfD in due course, however I suspect that it is one also heading for the big wikibin in the sky. Mtking (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that is your choice & I would monitor any proposal that you make on those lines. Personally, I think that option has already been discussed and pretty much failed to find a consensus, perhaps mainly due to it being sidetracked by issues relating to Australian cricket. As I see it, the next-best option is to test a couple in each league and then proceed to a grouped Afd for the remaining clubs in that league which have not, for example, won at Premier level. The same can apply to English club articles etc.
 * Which ever way it is done, there is a phenomenal amount of cruft here and it does need to be examined. I am slightly disappointed that people were prepared to weigh in on the project discussion but not to comment on the AfD discussions. I really would be happy with a "keep" if that is what the community believes is appropriate, but these things need sourcing somehow and AfD is a somewhat blunt instrument which might achieve that. - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletes
I accept, and respect, your judgment on the speedy deletes. Thank you for your continued monitoring and notifying me on my talk page. Missclark (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Offending Accusations
Thank you for providing links to the users I mentioned in the admin page. Is it advisable and within Wikipedia's rules to remove Ad Hominem attacks by other users against me? I would rather not do it myself since I suspect it would only anger them more. But the threats, accusations, and personal attacks have really become way too disruptive and offensive and when one user disappears, another re-appears to take their place with almost verbatim accusations. All these accusations are related to the Marisol Deluna page. Thank you. Aa1232011 (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Marisol Deluna. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing.  Sandstein   06:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I STRONGLY disagree with that, I have made efforts to explain my position on the talk page. Mtking (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Nihal Sri Ameresekere
Hi Mtking, I have removed the book detail completely and removed the advert tag, is it OK now?EconomicTiger (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Still a little promotional for my liking, looks like a section from a company website on a member of the company team, but lets see what others think. Mtking (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to do the correction.EconomicTiger (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

edit war: Miradre
Please at least do me the favor of at least reading what I wrote before you make a comment that is explicitly addressed: Because he is an experienced user, many of his edits avoid the bright line of the "24 hour, 3RR" rule. The bright line of 3RR is not the definition of edit warring. aprock (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not see any gaming either. Mtking (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest he was gaming. I said that he was edit warring.  I'll point you to the WP:CPUSH essay that I linked to in the report for more information about the behavior exhibited by Miradre. aprock (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Rizzle Kicks
Hi, regarding your speedy deletion nomination of Rizzle Kicks, I note that 'Their second single "Down With the Trumpets" was released on 12 June 2011, it peaked to number 58 on the UK Singles Chart' is certainly an assertion of notability and the article was thus not eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD. Kind regards, Amalthea  11:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Outside top 50 ? Mtking (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Having a song in a national chart is an "indication of importance" for the band, yes, which is all A7 asks for. Amalthea  17:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoops
I did not notice that you had taken the article to AfD literally SIX minutes after it was restored; I would have created the article myself had the deleted version not already existed, and thinking it was a leftover tag from the PROD I deleted it obviously; I was in error for that. However, if you'd seen my reason at Requests for undeletion, you would understand right now why I take your AfD nom. in completely bad faith. Give me a chance to work on the article before nominating it for deletion, can't you? As is, the article isn't much; however, notability is not in question as a draft pick of the Dallas Stars and per Dolovis noting articles establishing notability in the discussion itself. Given this information, I hope you would consider a withdrawal. CycloneGU (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
Hi Mtking. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing!  F ASTILY  (TALK) 18:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

A re-write
I think my edit just needs a minor rewrite. The Academic Board voted-in the regulation, But the Council votes on the 25 for how to apply the regulation to it's courses. :0)  BE  TA  00:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh crap you're right.  BE  TA  00:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Block notices
Users are allowed to remove block notices from their talk page, they just can't remove declined unblock request. Ryan Vesey contribs  00:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like this is a recent change on the policy I was unaware of see here. Mt  king  (edits)  00:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it began here with a change to the policy change that had not achieved consensus first. That is why it was brought to the village pump. Ryan Vesey  contribs  00:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Either way a recent change for what it is worth, I don't agree with it, but know for the future. Mt  king  (edits)  00:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to join the ongoing discussion. Ryan Vesey contribs  00:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

AN3 for User:Thelostmachine
FYI, I commented in your AN3 report. I was the one to warn Thelostmachine regarding WP:EW, and since doing so he's stopped warring and has begun discussion on the talk page. As such, it seems the AN3 report is unlikely to result in any action, and I would encourage you to redact it such that it does not appear to Thelostmachine that edit warring is acceptable behavior. Also, it seems like a bunch of people are jumping on him all at once. He does appear to be new, so WP:BITE would seem to apply. If he's willing to follow the rules he's been made aware of, then helping him adjust to our ways might be a good idea. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am aware of that, but he did make one revert after your warning and at that time showed no sign of working with you. Mt  king  (edits)  03:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Eh, not really. My first warning was at 23:11, but I used the template incorrectly and the warning did not appear. It wasn't until 23:13 that I fixed it. His last revert was also 23:13. He may have made that revert seconds after my warning, but even if so, it would have been less than one minute, I'm willing to AGF.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Law firms
Apologies as I hadn't seen the discussion, went off Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer precedent. It seems the consensus was against flags, which is fair enough, but not deleting lists of offices entirely. Harro5 07:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)